1. Merger Histories of LCDM Galaxies: Disk Survivability and the Deposition of Cold Gas via Mergers Kyle Stewart Ohio State CCAPP Seminar 10-14-08 Kyle Stewart Ohio State CCAPP Seminar 10-14-08 Collaborators: James Bullock, Elizabeth Barton – UC Irvine Risa Wechsler – Stanford, Ari Maller – NYCCT Based on Stewart et al. 2008 (arxiv.org/abs/0711.5027), Stewart et al. 2008b, c (both in prep)

2. Outline Introduction Universal DM Merger Rate dN/dt vs. z -- Too many high-z mergers? Mergers vs. Disk Survival Baryonic Galaxy Assembly (via mergers) Conclusions

3. Introduction: Dark Matter Halos form by mergers. Major mergers (even some minor mergers) turn disk-type galaxies into thick, flared, more bulgy systems. (eg. Mihos & Hernquist ‘94, Kazantzidis et al. ’07, ‘08; Purcell et al. ’08b) –And Yet: Majority of Milky-Way sized DM halos contain thin disk-dominated galaxies (z=0). (eg. Weinmann et al. ‘06; Choi et al. ‘07; Park et al. ‘07; Ilbert et al. ‘06.) Merger Rate increases with redshift. –And Yet: Large disk-like galaxies observed at z~2. (eg. Förster Shreiber ‘06; Genzel et al. ‘06; Shapiro et al. ‘08.) How is all this compatible? There is a concern about the survivability of disk galaxies in  CDM cosmology:

4. DM Merger Trees DM only,  CDM, N-Body simulation. 80 h -1 Mpc Box,  8 =0.9, 512 3 particles m p =3.16x10 8 h -1 M (better resolution than Millennium.) Adaptive Refinement Tree code. 512 3 cells, refined to max. of 8 levels. h peak ~ 1.2 h -1 kpc (Kravtsov et al. ‘97) Focus on host masses ranging from 10 11 -10 13 h -1 M (~15,000 halos at z=0, ~9,000 halos at z=2.) Complete to 10 10 h -1 M See, eg. Stewart et al. ’08 (galaxy size halos) Berrier, Stewart et al. ‘08 (cluster size halos) Stewart et al. ‘08

5. 5 Universal Merger Rate Stewart et al. (in prep)

6. Fakhouri & Ma DM Merger Rate There appears to be a fairly universal merger rate (FM08). To first order, we find the same result, despite different : 1) simulations 2) halo finding methods 3) merger tree construction. Fakhouri & Ma 2008 Stewart ‘09

7. Differences: Stronger mass dependence Note that we explore redshift evolution more directly. Emphasize higher mass ratios (1:10 – 1:1) Fakhouri & Ma Comparison Fitting Function: Fit based on dN/dz, instead of d 2 N/dz d(m/M) Stewart et al. ‘08b o r > 0.7, we are ~ 2 times higher. o r < 0.01, we are ~ 2 times lower. o r ~ 0.1 (where it counts) both fits agree very well!

8. 8 Merger Rate evolution with z. Stewart et al. 08b

9. dN/dt vs z : Predict: Strong evolution with redshift ~ (1+z)^2.2. Worry: does this contradict observational evidence for flat merger fraction with redshift ? (e.g. Lotz et al. ‘08, Jogee et al. ‘08) Stewart et al. 08b (Number with merger larger than m/M)

10. Merger Fraction in past 500 Myr*. *Sometimes used as an estimated timescale for morphological disruption. Lotz et al. ‘08 Jogee et al. ‘08 Agrees reasonably well with observations, for 1:10 minor + major mergers. Suggests much higher fraction at high redshift. Stewart et al. 08b redshift Use number density matching to associate halos with ~0.1L* galaxies from observed luminosity function (e.g. Faber et al. 07)

11. Merger Fraction in past dynamical time*. *Use halo dynamical time as a proxy for morphological dyn. time. Lotz et al. ‘08 Jogee et al. ‘08 Agrees reasonably well with observations, for 1:3 major mergers. Shows relatively flat redshift evolution. Stewart et al. 08b redshift Use number density matching to associate halos with ~0.1L* galaxies from observed luminosity function (e.g. Faber et al. 07)

12. 12 Merger Histories versus Disk Survivability Stewart et al. ‘08

13. Where does a halo’s mass come from? 10 13 h -1 M halos built up from ~ 10 12 h -1 M mergers 10 12 h -1 M halos built up from ~ 10 11 h -1 M mergers 10 11 h -1 M halos built up from ~ 10 10 h -1 M mergers M ~ 0.1*M 0 Comparison to theoretical EPS predictions reasonably close to N-Body, considering mass definitions Largest contribution to final halo mass comes from mergers with m/M 0 ~ 10% Stewart et al. ‘08

14. How often do mergers occur in 10 12 h -1 M halos? ~ 70% of halos: m > 1.0x10 11 ~ 50% of halos: m > 1.5x10 11 ~ 30% of halos: m > 2.5x10 11 By strict mass cut, in last ~10 Gyrs : Stewart et al. ‘08

15. Could a disk have formed afterwards? (Mass accretion after last major merger) These systems probably cannot subsequently re-grow a sizeable disk (from newly accreted material from subsequent galaxy mergers) Given a halo with mass M 0 at z=0… which we know has experienced at least 1 merger of mass > m … What fraction of M 0 was accreted AFTER the most recent merger > m? At most, only ~30% Stewart et al. ‘08

16. Is there a trend with mass? (from 10 11 -10 13 ) 1 word answer: “Nope.” 2 word answer: “Only slightly.” Stewart et al. ‘08

17. Section Sum-up : ~70% of Milky Way-sized halos have had a > 10 11 h -1 M merger in the past 10 Gyr. Since observations show that most Milky Way size halos are disk- dominated, these results imply: A 10 11 h -1 M dark matter halo merger cannot always destroy a typical Galactic disk, or we have a serious problem Stewart et al. ‘08

18. Purcell, Kazantzidis, & Bullock ‘08b (in prep): Quick simulation facts: 6 million particles  = 100pc (DM), 50pc (Stars) 1:10 mergers. variety of inclination angles. No gas. Only stars + DM. Results: z thin : 0.4 kpc  1-2kpc (and creates z thick = 4-6kpc)  tot : 50km/s  70-120 km/s (MW is ~ 35-40 km/s)

19. Gas Rich Mergers: the Solution? Gas rich minor mergers help form rotationally supported gaseous disk galaxies. Given a sufficiently high gas fraction (f gas > 50%), even major mergers (3:1) quickly reform into a disk. (Robertson et al. ’06, Hopkins et al. ‘08) Example: Observed disk galaxy at z~2 resembles simulated gas-rich merger remnant: Observation (Genzel et al. ’06) Simulation (Robertson & Bullock ’08)

20. 20 The baryonic assembly of galaxies via mergers 1. DM halo merger trees 2. Empirical Stellar Mass -- Halo Mass relation (Conroy & Wechsler 2008) 3. Empirical Gas Mass -- Stellar Mass relation (McGaugh 2005; Erb et al. 2006) Stewart et al. 08c

21. Step 2: Stellar Masses. Use number density matching to statistically assign an average stellar mass, given DM mass (and redshift). (data from Conroy & Wechsler 2008.) Step 3: Gas Masses. Use observations of galaxies at z=0 (McGaugh ‘05) and z~2 (Erb et al. ‘06) to estimate M gas, given M star, z (out to z=2). (See also Dutton ‘06) Conroy & Wechsler 2008 Log Stellar Mass (Msun) Log Halo Mass (Msun) Log Stellar Mass (Msun) Log (M gas /M star ) z = 0 z = 2 z = 0z = 2

22. Merger Fraction revisited: (> 1/3 mergers that hit the disk) Seems problematic… But what if we only look at gas rich* vs. gas poor* mergers? * Definitions: “Gas Poor” : both galaxies with gas fraction < 50% “Gas Rich” : both galaxies with gas fraction > 50% Small halos  gas rich mergers Large halos  gas poor mergers May explain disk survival? (Robertson et al. ‘06) gas poor gas rich Stewart et al. 08c

23. Gas Rich/Poor Merger Fractions vs. z Note transition mass above/below which gas rich/poor mergers dominate. (<10 11.2, z=0 ; ~10 11.6, z=0.5 ; ~10 12.7, z=1) Gas rich mergers at high redshift  “cold flows” ? Merger Fraction (1 dyn. time) z = 0.0 z = 0.5 z = 1.0 all gas poor gas rich Log(Halo Mass) 0.5 Stewart et al. 08c

24. Baryonic Mass Assembly How do galaxies get their mass (in mergers)? ~30% of cold baryons in MW-mass galaxies accreted directly in >1:3 mergers since z~2 (~20% gas, ~10% stars) Baryon Fraction Assembled in Mergers all stars gas z = 0z = 1 Stewart et al. 08c

25. Consider the DM merger rate for a 10 12 M halo: Merger rate low. Mergers gas poor (destroys disks) Merger rate increasing. So is the gas rich merger fraction. Merger rate high, but nearly ALL of them are very gas rich. May explain assembly of massive, gas-rich disk galaxies at z~2. (Robertson & Bullock 2008) Section Sum-up :

26. Conclusions: 1.Our simulation confirms the nearly universal merger rate of Fakhouri & Ma ’08 (to first order). However, there are 2 nd order differences (eg. stronger Mass dependence). Given the differences in halo finding and methods, this is quite encouraging. 2.Merger rate agrees fairly well with observed “morphologically disturbed” fractions, for first order estimates of merger timescale. 3.Disks must be able to survive some major* mergers (*either merger ratio > 1:3, or m > 10 11 h -1 M ). 4.If gas rich (f gas >50%) major mergers do result in disk-dominated galaxies, gas rich/poor merger histories seem promising for disk survival. (Explains mass-morph. relation?) eg. Nearly all mergers into MW-size halos are gas rich at z>1. 5.20% of baryons in ~L* galaxies are accreted as gas (10% stars) via >1:3 mergers (since z~2)  empirically motivated “cold flows.”

27. 27 dN/dz vs. z To first order, dN/dz is consistent with completely flat redshift evolution. To second order, dN/dz proportional to d(  c )/dz. Again, similar to findings in F&M ‘08